Our Parliament’s new committee members could warm up with study of The Economist’s online debate.
Knowing more may not help to decide whether to have an emissions trading scheme as opposed to a carbon tax, but it might improve our law’s vulnerability to cheating, and to misuse of powers by government for political patronage or even corrupt purposes.
I agree with DavidH.
The ETS appears to be only to appease our trading partners that we are “doing something”, since NZ’s influence on global CO2 production is virtually undetectable.
Lowering CO2 levels will harm our agriculture (plants grow better with more CO2 than current levels). It is time to stop talking about so-called “climate change” and instead talk about “feeding the world”.
That is the best contribution NZ can make — efficient food production so that other countries don’t have to produce so much food INEFFICIENTLY.
RSS feeds available for 
So having neither an emission trading scheme not a carbon tax is not an option? This is always the way to frame the debate to ensure the outcome is some form of government intervention in markets. For markets to have a chance to be free, can’t non-intervention be an option?